MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390200622 · doi:10.1002/alz.079139

Association of plasma biomarkers with cognitive domains across three neurodegenerative diseases and cerebrovascular disease

2023· article· en· W4390200622 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erlan Sanchez, Tim Wilkinson, Gillian Coughlan, Andrée‐Ann Baril, Malcolm A. Binns, Paula McLaughlin, Donna Kwan, Robert A. Hegele, Sandra E. Black, Anthony E. Lang, Maria Carmela Tartaglia, Elizabeth Finger, Morris Freedman, Richard H. Swartz, Hlin Kvartsberg, Henrik Zetterberg, Douglas P. Munoz, Mario Masellis

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Western HospitalRobarts Clinical TrialsSunnybrook HospitalQueen's UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthorityOntario Brain InstituteBaycrest HospitalMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University InstituteHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuropsychologyInternal medicineDiseaseMedicineCognitionOncologyCognitive declineNeuropsychological assessmentDementiaExecutive dysfunctionExecutive functionsBiomarkerPsychologyPsychiatryBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is critical to better understand the value of plasma biomarkers in predicting cognitive deficits before widespread use as diagnostic and prognostic tools in specialized clinics and as markers of neurodegenerative disease progression in trials. Herein, we investigate their association with five cognitive domains across three common neurodegenerative diseases and cerebrovascular disease. Method Patients from the curated multi‐site Ontario Neurodegenerative Disease Research Initiative (ONDRI) were included in this study, classified by diagnostic group: Alzheimer’s disease/Mild cognitive impairment (AD/MCI, n = 126, age = 71.0±8.2, 55%M), frontotemporal dementia spectrum disorders (FTD, n = 53, age = 67.8±7.1, 64%M), Parkinson’s disease (PD, n = 140, age = 67.9±6.3, 78%M) and cerebrovascular disease (CVD, n = 161, age = 69.2±7.4, 68%M). Plasma concentrations of Aβ40 and Aβ42 (Aβ42/40 ratio), glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light (NfL) and phosphorylated‐tau181 (p‐tau181) were measured using high‐sensitivity Simoa assays. Scores from a 26‐test comprehensive neuropsychological assessment were used to compute composite z‐scores for five cognitive domains: attention & working memory, executive function, language, memory, and visuospatial function. Linear regression models controlling for age, sex, education and APOE E4 allele were used to test the association between plasma biomarkers and cognitive domains in each group separately. Result In AD/MCI, higher levels of GFAP, NfL and p‐tau181 were all associated with worse attention & working memory, executive function, and memory. In PD, higher levels of NfL were associated with worse attention & working memory, executive function, and visuospatial function; higher levels of GFAP were also associated with worse executive function. In CVD, higher levels of GFAP were associated with worse executive function, memory and visuospatial function; higher levels of p‐tau181 were also associated with worse memory. In FTD, no associations were found. Conclusion Plasma biomarkers indicative of neuronal and glial pathology are useful to predict the severity of widespread cognitive deficits in AD/MCI, PD, and CVD. Interestingly, p‐tau181 predicted memory deficits in both AD/MCI and CVD, suggesting potential mixed disease or pathological overlap. Plasma Aβ42/40 does not appear to predict any cognitive deficits in any of the neurodegenerative diseases studied. As FTD is highly heterogeneous and had the least number of patients, we are possibly lacking power to detect effects in this group.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207